Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I would use 3 to 5 minutes.

Mr. CORZINE. I think the Senator from California is talking straight common sense. I think even those who are doing very well in our society can understand it. First, the millionaires you are talking about are two-tenths of 1 percent of the total amount of the taxpayers who would be impacted-- two-tenths of 1 percent. What the Senator is talking about is moving marginal tax rates back to the level where they were during the nineties, at a time when 22.5 million jobs were created. Think about it. Moving it back on two-tenths of 1 percent of the population, to a point in time when economic growth was the highest and the most sustained we had in the 20th century, the most expansionary period we had in the 20th century. What we are trying to do is turn around the economic performance of the Nation so all will benefit as the performance of our economy spreads out. I think it is fair. It is smart because it actually has been exhibited by history that these kinds of rate structures are not inhibiting to the economy; they were a part of the economy at the most successful period in the 20th century.

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator make the Senator from New Jersey a cosponsor?

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. First, a week ago Friday in New Jersey, we closed our next to last oil production facility. At the end of 2005, an industry that used to have several hundred thousand workers in New Jersey, as recently as 10 years ago, will have zero autoworkers now. We closed a Ford plant a week ago Friday. At the end of 2005, our final auto production facility for GM will close. We have seen the shrinkage of workers in the telecommunications industry, Lucent, and AT&T, which have been truly remarkable. Over 100,000 telecommunications jobs have been lost over the last 4 years. It is incredible the tension and the anxiety that people feel about both their ability to work and to care for their families. But then to think about the responsibility of health care and their retirement security is overwhelmingly a part of the concerns that middle-class Americans have. The kind of proposal the Senator from California is putting forth addresses those real concerns. I reemphasize, it is not only the people who lose their jobs; it is the people who live next door to those folks who see their real wages being depleted to low levels. We are undermining the economic health and well-being of the Nation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, has the chairman and the ranking member been able to resolve the question on the floor with regard to the other withdrawals? If that is the case, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make India eligible for assistance under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. India is facing a critical moment. An estimated 4.58 million people are infected with the HIV virus in India and HIV/AIDS has been reported in almost all the states and union territories of the country. The epidemic is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high- risk groups to the general population. Given India's size and the mobility of its population, there is a serious threat of catastrophe. India's political leaders, public health officials, non-governmental organizations, and medical and scientific communities have taken important steps to combat HIV/AIDS. India, the world's largest democracy, has skilled governmental and civil society actors who are committed to a new awareness of the AIDS crisis and strategic approaches to combating the disease. But significant gaps remain in the Indian health care system's ability to address the full scope of the crisis. These gaps require immediate and sustained U.S. engagement and contribution of resources. We must continue to expand the list of eligible countries in recognition of the global nature of this pandemic. We must also accelerate assistance to African and Caribbean countries already included as focus countries. Finally, we must increase overall funding to combat HIV/AIDS. India is but one example of the enormity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But it is also an example of the opportunities for America to reach out and find partners in combating this scourge. It is not true that programs to fight AIDS cannot absorb more resources. There is critical and urgent work to be done and committed professionals ready to do it. They just need our help. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make India eligible for assistance under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. India is facing a critical moment. An estimated 4.58 million people are infected with the HIV virus in India and HIV/AIDS has been reported in almost all the states and union territories of the country. The epidemic is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high- risk groups to the general population. Given India's size and the mobility of its population, there is a serious threat of catastrophe. India's political leaders, public health officials, non-governmental organizations, and medical and scientific communities have taken important steps to combat HIV/AIDS. India, the world's largest democracy, has skilled governmental and civil society actors who are committed to a new awareness of the AIDS crisis and strategic approaches to combating the disease. But significant gaps remain in the Indian health care system's ability to address the full scope of the crisis. These gaps require immediate and sustained U.S. engagement and contribution of resources. We must continue to expand the list of eligible countries in recognition of the global nature of this pandemic. We must also accelerate assistance to African and Caribbean countries already included as focus countries. Finally, we must increase overall funding to combat HIV/AIDS. India is but one example of the enormity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But it is also an example of the opportunities for America to reach out and find partners in combating this scourge. It is not true that programs to fight AIDS cannot absorb more resources. There is critical and urgent work to be done and committed professionals ready to do it. They just need our help. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator is right, except for the 2001. It is moving back up to the 39.6 percent rate for those over $1 million.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I would like to make just a couple observations relative to the views of the Senator from Oklahoma. The last time I checked, when marginal rates were 39.6 percent for a whole wider range of Americans--and I do believe marginal rates and large increments do make a difference on the motivation to work--the economy grew for 8 straight years, producing 22.5 million jobs. We had 4, 5 percent productivity, the highest growth in small business in the history of the country. It is hard for one to imagine just exactly how that marginal rate ended up being so dampening to economic growth given the reality of the economy's performance in the 1990s. And now what we are talking about with this suggestion applies to two-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers. I would also suggest that there are many differentials already in the Tax Code with regard to tax payments on dividends. It is not a flat application of the dividend rate for all businesses. So there are many circumstances where you could end up having a differential of rates. I think the choice that we are making here is: Is it worthwhile to protect guaranteed benefits--again, where one-third of Americans now are 100 percent dependent on Social Security as their sole protection for their senior years and another third are 50 percent or more dependent? Do we want to continue to have a social safety net, a guaranteed benefit for Americans? I think that is a compact and a trust we put together. This is one of the ways that we can begin to address it: a $1 trillion present-value step, if we were to implement it. So I hope my colleagues will take into account whether we want to maintain Social Security with its guaranteed benefit structure or are we going to put ourselves at risk, having to change that program because we do not have the long-term actuarial protection of the ability to fulfill the obligations that are accumulating by Americans who work, the fundamental value that we take on here. The folks from the State that I call home tell me that Social Security is vital to their long-term security. And I hear from those folks that they would like to see a program that is not at risk, but they want to maintain that guaranteed benefit. This is one of those steps we can take to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator from Nevada a simple definitional question, I think government bonds and treasury bills are assets. They may not be as high yield assets as those available to the investment profile that is the Nevada PERS fund, but then again, it is also an asset that provides presumably greater security and less volatility and less risk to those who would benefit from it down the road. Social Security, while it has pay-as-you-go characteristics, has never been a system that was without accumulated reserves or deficient reserves. There is a time for us to have a debate about Social Security that goes further than we do tonight, but my view is if we reduce the amount of borrowings that are taken out of the Social Security trust fund to fund everything else we do in government, we would be a lot safer in the long run, and that is what my amendment is really to accomplish. The reserve is going to lower actually the amount of borrowing the Federal Government has to do. I think it is up to us to express the self-discipline of not having unlimited tax cuts and also discipline with regard to spending. It is not just on the spending side that we have shown a lack of discipline that has allowed us to get to $5.5 trillion of publicly held debt. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is very simple in nature. It calls for the elimination of tax breaks for those with incomes greater than $1 million, that is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of income-tax payers in the United States with incomes greater than $1 million, and reserves the savings for the Social Security fund. I emphasize that is two-tenths of American taxpayers, basically setting a new bracket, returning it to 39.5 percent for those who have adjusted gross income over $1 million. The amendment uses the savings to establish a reserve fund for Social Security which would be used only to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund and prevent future cuts in Social Security benefits. It is straightforward. Social Security represents the best of America's values. It promises all Americans, if you work hard, pay your taxes, play by the rules, you can live out your life in dignity. Social Security is not a handout. It is not welfare. It is an earned benefit. It honors and rewards work, a basic American value. The promise of Social Security, when you get right down to it, is a guaranteed promise of retirement security. Regardless of how long you live, regardless of the rate of inflation, regardless of the state of the economy or the state of the stock market, you worked all your life, you contributed to our Nation's productivity. Social Security promises you will have enough to have dignity in your senior years. In fact, the benefits promised by Social Security are quite modest. The average monthly benefit is about $900; $900 per month for a senior. I don't think, at least not in New Jersey--that is not exactly luxurious living that one would be benefiting from, from Social Security. But it does provide an important safety net. For nearly one-third of the seniors in retirement, it is at least 90 percent of their income or more--one-third. For another one-third it is 50 percent or more of their retirement security. And for the balance, it is a major support, that third third; it is a little less than 50 percent but a significant part of their retirement security. As a result of Social Security, the poverty rate among seniors today is less than 10 percent. It is actually about 9 percent. Without the program, nearly half of all retirees would live below the poverty level--48 percent is what the calculations would be--which, by the way, is where seniors were before the institution of Social Security. It has provided a major support for the quality of life for America's seniors. We hear a lot of conversation around here about the problems facing Social Security. Let me first say that talk is way overblown. Even if Congress does nothing, the Social Security system is secure and solvent to 2042. After that date, a substantial portion of benefits could continue--about 75 percent, I guess, according to the actuaries. That said, we all have a responsibility to address the long-term solvency problem of Social Security. It is not in crisis, but it needs to be addressed. It is better to deal with it earlier rather than later. That is one of the reasons I believe my amendment makes sense. If we get started on that process now, we can protect seniors as time goes forward. The Social Security trust fund faces a long-term shortfall. The last 30 years of the trust fund needs to be addressed. We ought to be preparing for it. That is what I am trying to talk about. Given the angst that so many people in the country have with regard to Social Security, the President proposed a very radical reform program which we heard about in the State of the Union. It is something I think we ought to start putting money aside for now to protect our seniors as we go forward. The reality is that this budget resolution does nothing to preserve or save Social Security. That is why I think it is so important that we address it. This is one of those means to do it. Actually, this budget resolution in many ways will make the problem worse. This budget resolution takes every penny out of the Social Security trust fund and spends it either on funding additional tax cuts or spending it on other programs, depending on how you look at it. But the fact is, over the next 10 years we are going to--if we don't eliminate tax cuts or some portion of it--use $2.5 trillion. That is the cost of the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years. That is almost dollar per dollar what would be coming into the Social Security trust fund over the period of time ahead. That is what the excess is. Almost dollar for dollar, we match the funding of those tax cuts and use up the Social Security trust fund. I don't think that is what the American people had in mind. I know they don't have in mind running this country deeper and deeper into debt. In fact, this budget resolution continues what this Congress and this President have done over recent years, which is absolute abandonment of fiscal discipline. For the year 2005, the majority is proposing that the Government run a deficit of more than $512 billion with this resolution. That is the full on-budget element, and I think it is very hard to argue it is fiscally responsible. In fact, I consider that a pretty egregious figure hardly reflecting the kind of fiscal responsibility we all seem to hold close to our chests. Even that figure is misleading because it excludes known costs such as the cost of addressing the alternative minimum tax beyond 2005; similarly, the cost of our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq after 2005. By the way, I compliment the chairman and others for putting together a resolution that actually acknowledges there will be additional expenditures. But I don't think we have addressed it. Most importantly, we are not addressing, and there is no allowance for, the provisions that are embedded in Social Security reform that is talked about both by the President and many of those on the other side of the aisle. Everyone knows that the total cost of the transition to private accounts, which is so readily embraced by many, will be over $1 trillion and that nothing is allowed in this budget for the beginning of that transition. I think it is even more aggravated with regard to where we will end up relative to what the reflected budget deficit is that is included. I think it will be considerably larger. We are fooling ourselves if we think that running such deficits comes without a cost. In the long run, these deficits will have a substantial impact on our economy and on every American family. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by the end of 10 years we would have $36 billion in publicly held debt. Instead, today we are looking at a projection of $5.5 trillion by 2008. It is a rather significant swing in cashflow by this country. It calls into question whether we are really thinking about the long-run impact this is going to have on our Nation. Our level of national savings will go down, interest costs will go up, investment will go down, and the end result is likely to be a reduced standard of living in the long term for all Americans. There is one thing that is absolutely certain in this context, and that is the certainty that every American will be carrying the debt burden that goes well beyond where we are today, which is about $24,000 per person and up to about $35,000 just in 2009. I hate to see how this explodes over the longer period of time because we have all seen the charts about how deficits grow as the baby boomers retire. We have a real problem. It is going to undermine the quality and level of standard of living in America through a period of time. That is why I believe we need to revisit at least some of the huge tax breaks enacted in recent years. Over the next 75 years, the cost of the Bush tax cuts is about $12 trillion in present value terms. By contrast, the amount needed to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security is less than $4 trillion. This is what the tax cuts cost for 75 years. This is how much it costs to fix Social Security, according to the actuarials. In other words, those tax cuts cost more than three times the entire Social Security shortfall. What will happen if we make the tax cuts permanent, as the President wants? It is a real problem in our capacity to fix this problem; by the way, Medicare as well. It will lead inevitably to benefit cuts in Social Security, and more than likely will be dealt with quite deeply. Many of us, by the way, have thought and long suspected that the rising deficits of recent years have been no accident but rather part of a strategy designed to force deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare to change the basic underlying fix of the social safety net we have in this country. Recently, it became a little more clear in a lot of people's minds exactly what is going on here. No less a figure than the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, came out and publicly stated it is time to do two things: make permanent tax breaks which go largely to those doing the most well in our society, or make significant cuts-- long run cuts--in Social Security benefits. No doubt many politicians who believe in such an approach were hoping to defer this debate until after the election. But I think we need to have that debate out in the public and fully understood. I compliment Chairman Greenspan for at least raising this issue so it is on the table. I don't necessarily agree with the strategy of execution, of making permanent these tax cuts which undermine our ability to deal with it, but I think it is absolutely one we need to debate. We need to be saving today to make sure we can protect those benefits for tomorrow. We can't do it if we are going to continue to live with this absolute binge of tax cuts, especially for the most fortunate. Yet that is what this resolution proposes. That is why I feel so strongly we should take steps to try to address something that is so fundamental to the American people. My amendment proposes to limit those tax breaks that go to those with incomes greater than $1 million. By the way, just returning to the tax bracket at the very high end, .2 percent of the American taxpayers use those savings to establish a Social Security reserve fund. The fund would be available only for legislation to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund and to prevent future benefit cuts. This would not entirely save Social Security's long-term challenge. Roughly $4 trillion is what we have, but it is a heck of a downpayment. It is about $1 trillion on the present value basis in the direction of a big step towards trying to preserve and make sure we can deal with the Social Security shortfall over a period of time. Again, let me recap why this amendment is so important. Social Security is a promise we must keep. It is a promise millions of hard- working Americans will depend on to keep them out of poverty in their old age. Keeping that promise in the future will require increasing our savings now. That is why we cannot afford to build massive deficits with huge new tax breaks for the most fortunate Americans among us. We need to be disciplined. We need to be responsible. This amendment says instead of going deeper and deeper into debt, let's save a portion for the future. Let's hold off on tax breaks for those with incomes greater than $1 million so we can keep our promise to Social Security and prevent future benefit cuts for our seniors as the years go on. That is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. I hope the majority of my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. It would.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, would the chairman acknowledge the $160 billion is only for 5 years? If you were to implement this policy over the full 75-year timeframe, the present value would be roughly $1 trillion. My calculation is not down to the last decimal point. But the point being not that $160 billion will save Social Security, nor $1 trillion, but doesn't the Senator think we ought to be making steps, even if it is not this approach, to begin to address these shortfalls as we go forward?

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I compliment both the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in this debate. I hope people understand how civil and effective the views in the debate have been carried forward. They will be pleased to know we have pulled the other three amendments I submitted.

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORZINE. With that, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE. It would.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, legislation to eliminate a major inequity that has existed for several years among certain year-groups of military retirees already enrolled in the Survivors' Benefit Plan. In the interest of a strong national defense, it is critical that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military. This applies both while military members are serving, and as they move beyond their working years. Our military retirees and their families have made significant sacrifices in the defense of their country. They deserve benefits commensurate with those sacrifices. In 1972, Congress created the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP), giving career military members the option of taking less retirement pay in their own lifetime in return for the continuation of that pay to the surviving spouse, in the event the retiree pre-deceased his or her spouse. SBP was a wise and important decision by the Congress; hundreds of thousands of military members have enrolled in SBP since 1972, and the program has given much-deserved security and peace of mind to those spouses who, along with military members, share the burdens of a military career. Congress expanded the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) in 1999, by creating the ``Paid-Up Provision.'' Under that provision, retirees who are at least seventy years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least thirty years are considered ``paid up'' and do not have to continue paying in to receive benefits. This change provides a modest but frequently important boost to retirees' income at a stage in their lives, in their 70's, when they may be less able to supplement their retirement income from other employment. However, there is a major caveat, and a significant inequity here. The ``Paid-Up Provision'', under the 1999 legislation, does not take effect until October 2008. As a result, those who enrolled before 1978 will continue under the current law to have to pay in as much as six years longer than enrollees from 1978 or after. The SBP program was created in 1972. An effective date of 2008 for the SBP's ``Paid-Up Provision'' means that those who enrolled in the first six years of the program, i.e., between 1972 and 1977, must, in order to get the same retirement benefits, pay in longer, as much as six years longer, than those who enrolled in 1978 or later. In other words, those who signed up before 1978 get the same benefits but have to pay a much higher price. This arrangement is unfair on its face and should be corrected. My bill, the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, simply takes the ``Paid-Up Provision''--already established by Congress in 1999, and moves its effective date ahead four years, from October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2004. That is the only change it makes. This bill, if approved, would benefit some ninety-two thousand military retirees nationwide, those who enrolled in SBP between 1974 and 1977. The Military Officers Association of America has estimated that the cost would be $2.7 billion over ten years. Under my bill, ninety-two thousand military retirees participating in the SBP program, from every State and congressional district, will no longer be forced to pay more for their retirement than military retirees who enrolled in SBP in 1978 or later. This is only fair--the benefits for which these 92,000 are paying are identical, and their service was just as worthy. The 1999 legislation establishing the ``Paid-Up Provision'' was a good idea with the wrong effective date--it was given a 2008 effective date because that Congress wanted to defer any budgetary impact. Accounting conventions and budgetary targets, however, should not determine whether we are going to keep faith with our military men and women. Any arrangement that treats them with any trace of unfairness or lack of appreciation for their service is not right, is not in our national interest and should be fixed. The Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004 is such a fix it-- corrects a significant inequity among an important group of military retirees, and I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, legislation to eliminate a major inequity that has existed for several years among certain year-groups of military retirees already enrolled in the Survivors' Benefit Plan. In the interest of a strong national defense, it is critical that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military. This applies both while military members are serving, and as they move beyond their working years. Our military retirees and their families have made significant sacrifices in the defense of their country. They deserve benefits commensurate with those sacrifices. In 1972, Congress created the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP), giving career military members the option of taking less retirement pay in their own lifetime in return for the continuation of that pay to the surviving spouse, in the event the retiree pre-deceased his or her spouse. SBP was a wise and important decision by the Congress; hundreds of thousands of military members have enrolled in SBP since 1972, and the program has given much-deserved security and peace of mind to those spouses who, along with military members, share the burdens of a military career. Congress expanded the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) in 1999, by creating the ``Paid-Up Provision.'' Under that provision, retirees who are at least seventy years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least thirty years are considered ``paid up'' and do not have to continue paying in to receive benefits. This change provides a modest but frequently important boost to retirees' income at a stage in their lives, in their 70's, when they may be less able to supplement their retirement income from other employment. However, there is a major caveat, and a significant inequity here. The ``Paid-Up Provision'', under the 1999 legislation, does not take effect until October 2008. As a result, those who enrolled before 1978 will continue under the current law to have to pay in as much as six years longer than enrollees from 1978 or after. The SBP program was created in 1972. An effective date of 2008 for the SBP's ``Paid-Up Provision'' means that those who enrolled in the first six years of the program, i.e., between 1972 and 1977, must, in order to get the same retirement benefits, pay in longer, as much as six years longer, than those who enrolled in 1978 or later. In other words, those who signed up before 1978 get the same benefits but have to pay a much higher price. This arrangement is unfair on its face and should be corrected. My bill, the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, simply takes the ``Paid-Up Provision''--already established by Congress in 1999, and moves its effective date ahead four years, from October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2004. That is the only change it makes. This bill, if approved, would benefit some ninety-two thousand military retirees nationwide, those who enrolled in SBP between 1974 and 1977. The Military Officers Association of America has estimated that the cost would be $2.7 billion over ten years. Under my bill, ninety-two thousand military retirees participating in the SBP program, from every State and congressional district, will no longer be forced to pay more for their retirement than military retirees who enrolled in SBP in 1978 or later. This is only fair--the benefits for which these 92,000 are paying are identical, and their service was just as worthy. The 1999 legislation establishing the ``Paid-Up Provision'' was a good idea with the wrong effective date--it was given a 2008 effective date because that Congress wanted to defer any budgetary impact. Accounting conventions and budgetary targets, however, should not determine whether we are going to keep faith with our military men and women. Any arrangement that treats them with any trace of unfairness or lack of appreciation for their service is not right, is not in our national interest and should be fixed. The Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004 is such a fix it-- corrects a significant inequity among an important group of military retirees, and I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CORZINE. The $140 billion the Senator from Connecticut spoke about with regard to salaries on the chart the Senator previously showed, there is a multiplier effect. It is almost three times that value to the economy. The Senator had the chart which showed the full implications. It is remarkable what is given up when our Nation loses these jobs overseas. It is not just those salaries. When you take the full implication, because you also have to look at the tax revenues that come back into the coffers of State, local, and Federal governments, these numbers could be even larger. This is just showing the impact of what the multiplier effect is for the economy. These numbers are huge. So the undermining of the well-being of our economy by this outsourcing element is just way more profound than I think is being discussed and is an extraordinary misrepresentation and a mistake for the administration to believe that this is something we ought to be embracing and encouraging. There is another element that needs to be thought about. Every time those outsourcing jobs cost an American job, then that individual has to compete for another job. Right now, for all but the top 20 percent of our economy, we are seeing declining real wages. The fact is, people are competing for lesser quality jobs that pay less than the jobs that are leaving. I think we have seen estimates that it is about 20 percent less that an individual makes in the next job they take after they have been laid off. It is profoundly wrong for the administration to embrace such a dangerous idea both for the economic power and also the real hurt that I think it brings to the individual loss.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Montana is exactly right, some of the regulatory restrictions or ability to actually penetrate some of these markets, while they may meet the letter of the law with regard to trade agreements, are virtually impossible, particularly in the services where we supposedly have the comparative advantage. I think unless we are prepared to deal on all fronts--enforcing our trade agreements, particularly with large economies--we are not going to see even the theoretical benefits coming back of open trade markets. The situation is very true in the old industry that I worked in, financial services. It is very hard to penetrate these large economies about which the Senator has talked. So we give up the jobs in outsourcing, but we are not getting the ability to actually provide the services that would make up for some of those jobs back here at home. It goes back to a miscast presentation of a concept that is fine in Economics 101 books on comparative advantage but makes no sense in the everyday lives of working men and women in America.

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator will yield for a quick statement, on Friday, we closed the last Ford production facility in New Jersey, and we are on track to have complete closure of the auto industry in New Jersey, which used to be one of the heartlands of auto production, outside of Michigan. It is very much reflected in the kinds of numbers the Senator is talking about. We were supposed to be replacing those jobs with technology, information systems and telecommunications equipment, and now we see those jobs moving offshore just as much, and some are reflected in those numbers. That is why it is so important to stanch some of that movement by the kind of action that would be taken in reflection of the amendment of the Senator.